1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the determination of the plaintiffs’ claims additionally, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that, with respect to KRW 15 million repaid to the Defendant from August 19, 2016 to August 21, 2017, the payment of which was made from August 201, 2017, would be a legitimate ground for objection, if the payment was made on or before August 24, 2017, which was the date of closing argument in the final and conclusive judgment of this case, and thus, the Defendant made unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the above claim for return of the lease deposit against the Defendant would be offset against the amount equal to the above claim for return of unjust enrichment by the delivery of the preparatory document as of January 21, 2019.

B. The unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on an benefiting person on the basis of the ideology of equity and justice in a case where the benefiting person’s property profit lacks a legal cause. The system is to resolve such inconsistency by ordering the acquisitor of property value to return the value in a case where there is a change in a certain property value among certain parties and it seems reasonable in general and form, but the change in property value among them is contrary to the ideal of equity in which the law is different from a relative and substantive point of view.

Therefore, the issue of whether “legal cause” among the elements for establishing unjust enrichment belongs to the area of normative judgment based on the principle of fairness. Therefore, the determination ought to be reasonably made in consideration of the nature of the act of payment or the responsibility and duty of the provider with regard to the pertinent act of payment, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da218068 Decided January 14, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Da275297 Decided April 13, 2017, etc.). In other words, the Plaintiffs are automatic claims.